1

(TRB 05-1605)
ESTIMATING CAPACITY FOR UNINTERRUPTED MOTORCYCLE
PATH IN MALAYSIA
Hussain H.
1
, Radin Umar R.S.
2
, Ahmad Farhan M.S.
3
, Dadang M.M.
4
Revised and Submitted on: 15 November 2004
Main content (3,767 words) + Abstract (272 words) + 8 Figures (2,000 words) = 6,039 words
AUTHORS INFORMATION:
Hussain Hamid (KEY AUTHOR)
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Serdang, Selangor
MALAYSIA
Fax : 603-86567129
Email-1 : hushamid@eng.upm.edu.my
Email-2 : hussainhamid@hotmail.com
Ir. Dr. Radin Umar Radin Sohadi
Professor
Road Safety Research Center
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Serdang, Selangor
MALAYSIA
Fax : 603-86567099
Email : radinumx@eng.upm.edu.my
Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd. Sadullah
Associate Professor
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia
14300 Nibong Tebal
Seberang Perai Selatan
Pulau Pinang
MALAYSIA
Fax : 604-5941037
Email : cefrhn@eng.usm.my
Dr. Dadang Mohamad Masoem
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Serdang, Selangor
MALAYSIA
Fax : 603-86567129
Email : dadang@eng.upm.edu.my
2
Abstract
In developing countries like ASEAN, the key road accident problems arise from the high
proportion of motorcycles in the mixed vehicles population. Considering that motorcyclists formed
the major road users, the provision of motorcycle facilities would significantly reduce accident and
improve motorcycle safety. But studies on capacity of motorcycle facilities were overlooked. This
paper attempts to establish the fundamental motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships along
uninterrupted motorcycle path in Malaysia. Initial findings enable the maximum motorcycle flow,
critical speed and critical density at capacity conditions to be estimated. It threw light in designing
motorcycle path for developing and highly motorcycled countries.
Field and experimented observations of motorcycle flow and speed passing through different
path widths were conducted along the present motorcycle path of Federal Highway, Selangor,
Malaysia and in Universiti Putra Malaysia campus. Data were collected by means of a digital video
camera, laser speed detector, and horizontal distance measurer. From the aggregated data collected,
the fundamental diagrams of motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships ranging from the stable
flow to unstable conditions were plotted. Linear regression analysis was employed in the model
building process.
Results indicated that under the headway concept (W1.7 m), capacity is reached at a
maximum motorcycle flow of 3306 mc/hr/lane, corresponding to a critical speed of 13 km/hr and
critical density of 235 mc/km/lane. As for the space concept (W>1.7 m), capacity occurs at a
maximum motorcycle flow of 2207 mc/hr/m. This corresponds to a critical motorcycle speed of 13
km/hr and critical motorcycle density of 0.166 mc/m
2
(or space of 6.0 m
2
/mc). The outcome is an
initial effort to fill the missing link in capacity studies among various land transportation facilities.
Keywords: Motorcycle accidents, Motorcycle facilities, Missing link, Fundamental relationships,
Capacity.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3
1. INTRODUCTION
Unlike the developed countries, the road safety problems in the developing world, especially
ASEAN countries are worsening. Road accident costs incurred about 2% of their gross domestic
product (GDP) and, on this basis, the cost to ASEAN countries is estimated at over USD11 billion per
year. These recurring economic losses inhibited its economic and social development. One of the
major reasons is related to the high proportion of two- and three-wheeled vehicles in its mixed vehicle
population (Vietnam [95%], Lao Peoples Democratic Republic [79%], Cambodia [75%] and
Indonesia [73%]). The fact that the present vehicle growth has been in motorcycles exacerbated the
already dangerous traffic environment. For instance, the number of motorcycles in Vietnam increased
by 29% in 2001, resulting with a 39% increase in road deaths that year (1). The Asian Institute of
Technology in Bangkok generalized that the high proportion of motorcycles on Thailands roads is
linked to a higher death rate. Of the countrys 26 million registered vehicles, 12 million are two-
wheelers while there are another 6 million unregistered motorcycles. About 80% of all fatal accidents
in Thailand involve motorcycles (2). In Malaysia, motorcycles constitute about 55% of all registered
vehicles while almost 60% of all road accident fatalities were motorcyclists (3).
Motorcycles are popular in many parts of Asia because almost anyone can afford one. The
implications from the fact that motorcyclists are the major road users in these countries cannot be
ignored; and something must be done to cater for the safety and travel needs of these vulnerable road
users. Literature has proved that segregating motorcycles from other traffic by means of motorcycle
facilities have reduced the accident exposure and have significantly improved the safety of
motorcyclists (3, 4). Based on these advantages, Malaysia is championing the provision of motorcycle
facilities to its neighboring countries. As in other land transportation facilities, the understanding of
the capacity of a motorcycle facility is essential before a transport engineer could design and construct
this facility.
However, available literature on the capacity of transportation facilities commonly emerging
from developed countries seems to overlook motorcycle facilities. This is expected as these countries
have very low motorcycle population thus not warranting studies on motorcycle facilities. In the
United Kingdom, the number of motorcycles, scooters and mopeds make up only 3% of the total
registered vehicles in year 2001 (5).
This paper attempts to establish the fundamental motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships
along an uninterrupted motorcycle path in Malaysia. These initial findings enable the estimation of the
maximum motorcycle flow, critical motorcycle speed, critical motorcycle density at capacity
conditions, and jam density at breakdown conditions. Apart from indicating the range of values to
define the level-of-service criteria, it also gives some guidance to engineers towards designing
motorcycle path in developing and highly motorcycled countries. This study was seen as initiative to
fill the knowledge gap in capacity studies that existed among the various land transportation facilities,
thus contributing new knowledge to the field of transportation engineering.
2. CAPACITY OF VULNERABLE ROAD USERS FACILITIES
In the search for literature related to the motorcycle facility, the guidelines for the design of a
cycle lane (or referred as motorcycle track) that were published by the Public Works Department,
Ministry of Works Malaysia (6, 7) seems to be the closest available information. However, most of
the elements of design were inclined towards a bicycle track. The design speed was 60 km/hr. It
recommended that for motorcycle volume ranging 1000-1500 per hour, the minimum and desired
width are 2.0 m and 2.5 m respectively. For motorcycle volumes higher than 2000 per hour, a
minimum width of 3.0 m and desired width of 3.5 m should be applied. The source or approach
towards obtaining these recommended values were not clarified. There was no mentioned on the
capacity or level of service of this facility. In a study related to motorcycle/rider characteristics (8), it
4
was found that small- and medium-sized motorcycles (less than 250 c.c.) represented 99% of all
motorcycles in Malaysia. In terms of space requirement, the static handlebar width of a
motorcycle/rider unit is 0.8 m. The operating width ranged from 0.9 m to 1.7 m with a mean width of
1.3 m. It was observed that motorcyclists riding manner were influenced by the available width of the
motorcycle path. Constrained by the total width of 1.7 m or less, motorcyclists ride in a single file
both during low or high flow. Thus, under this condition, the headway (or platoon) concept is
applicable, i.e. motorcycle flow is measured in mc/hr/ln. On the other hand, motorcyclists formed into
more than two lines either during low or high flow for total widths of more than 1.7 m. As such, the
space concept is applied; i.e. motorcycle flow is expressed in mc/hr/m-width.
There were significant numbers of literature related to the bicycle facility as compared to the
motorcycle facility. It was stated that bicyclists tend to operate in distinct lanes of varying widths. The
capacity of a bicycle facility depends on the number of effective lanes used by bicycles rather than the
total width of the bicycle facility or of the individual lanes (9). The capacity of one-way and two-way
bicycle facilities were reported to range from 17002530 bicycles/hr and 5002000 bicycles/hr
respectively (10). In one study, the bicycle saturation flow rates were obtained by experimentation for
three different bike-lane widths. The capacity of a bicycle facility was cited as 0.22 bicycles per
second per foot of bicycle path. This is equivalent to 2,376 bicycles/hour for a 3-ft (0.91-m) bicycle
path (11). As for exclusive bicycle facilities operating under uninterrupted flow conditions, studies
from Europe indicated capacity values of 1,600 bicycles/hr/ln for two-way facilities, and 3,200
bicycles/hr/ln for one-way facilities (12).
Compared to the two vulnerable road users, studies on the pedestrian facilities were better
researched. The pedestrian capacity terminologies, principles of pedestrian flow, fundamental
relationships, capacity and level-of-service of the facility were discussed (9, 13). The concept of a
pedestrian lane was used to analyze pedestrian flow. But for pedestrian analysis, a space concept was
used because studies have shown that pedestrians do not walk in organized lanes. The relationship
among speed, density and pedestrian flow is analogous to vehicular traffic streams. Since density
values are too small for comparison study, space (the inverse of density) is a more useful expression.
In addition, it described the area occupied by one pedestrian. The basic relationship between flow and
space recorded by several researchers (13) indicated that at flows near capacity, an average space of
0.4 to 0.9 m
2
/p is needed for each moving pedestrian. As space is reduced to less than 0.4 m
2
/p, the
flow rate declines precipitously and all movement effectively stops at the minimum space of 0.2 to 0.3
m
2
/p. The relationship of walking speed and available space (13) suggested some points of
demarcation for developing level-of-service criteria.
Overall, the literature review and frequent observations in the field (Fig. 1) threw light on the
suitable methodology approach to develop the fundamental relationships for an uninterrupted segment
of a motorcycle path.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data collections
Key parameters measured at the study sites were motorcycle volumes, individual motorcycle
spot speeds, and total paved widths of the motorcycle path. Motorcyclists riding along the paths were
captured using a digital video recording camera, and volumes counted in the laboratory from a large
screen television. Simultaneously, individual motorcycle spot speeds were measured using a portable
laser speed detector. Time of internal clocks for both laser speed detector and digital video recorder
were synchronized before conducting the observations. Total width of motorcycle path was measured
across the paved section using a horizontal distance measurer. Parameters measured at each study site
were reduced into the following format:
5
(i) Motorcycle time-mean speeds (S
t
) at 1-minute interval (measured in kilometers per hour),
(ii) Motorcycle volumes (V
c
) at 1-minute interval (counted in number of motorcycles),
(iii) Total widths (W
t
) of the motorcycle path (measured in meters).
Time-mean speeds were converted to space-mean speeds according to established traffic flow
theories (14). Motorcycle volume collected in 1 minute was converted to an equivalent rate of flow in
motorcycles per hour. For the space concept, the rate of flow per unit width was obtained by dividing
the rate of flow with the total width of the motorcycle path. In addition, to fulfill the requirements of
dimensional analysis in the computation, the speed in kilometer per hour was converted into meter per
hour.
3.2 Field and experimented study sites
In an attempt to collect data ranging from the stable-flow to unstable-flow conditions, the
study was conducted in three stages. In the initial stage, data was collected at three sites of the
motorcycle path along the Federal Highway Route 2 (FO2) in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. All
sites were level and have straight path at the diverging, merging and basic segments with total widths
of 2.4 m, 3.0 m and 3.3 m respectively. However, observations from these three sites only exhibited
the initial portion of a stable flow condition even under peak hour conditions and minimum width of
2.4 m. Field observations of motorcycle flow at capacity and near-jam density conditions were not
possible unless the widths were made smaller than 2.4 m and coupled with considerably high
motorcycle flows.
In the second stage, three experimental studies representing three different widths of less than
2.4 m were conducted in the Universiti Putra Malaysia campus. The experimental studies involved
100 motorcyclists riding along level and straight basic segments that were narrowed down on one side
by safety cones. The experimental total widths were 1.5 m, 1.7 m and 1.9 m respectively.
Based on the success of experimental studies in obtaining data covering capacity and near-
jam density conditions, similar experimental studies were conducted along the motorcycle path along
the FO2 highway. In this third stage, the experimental studies were conducted on the morning peak
hour motorcycle traffic riding along the level and straight basic segments of experimental total widths
1.4 m, 1.6 m and 2.0 m respectively.
3.3 Data analysis
A total of 193 data points measured at 1-minute interval were aggregated from the study sites.
It covered a range of total widths from 1.4 m to 3.3 m. Adopting an earlier findings (8), the headway
concept covered data points belonging to total widths of 1.7 m or less. For the purpose of comparison,
the space concept encompassed all data points. Scatter plot diagrams were obtained for three
relationships; i.e. Flow (v)-Speed (S), Flow (v)-Density (D), and Speed (S)-Density (D).
The initial calibrations focused on the S-D relationships because S-D curves are
monotonically decreasing and involve simpler mathematical forms than the other two curves. In
addition, S-D curves represent the most basic interaction of drivers/riders and vehicles on the road.
Drivers/riders adjust their speed according to the perceived proximity of other vehicles (density).
Flow does not influence behavior, but is a product of speed and density. Since v = S x D, the
calibration of S-D relationship leads to the derivation of the other two relationships. Various forms
have been postulated for the shape of the S-D relationship (15). The shapes ranged from linear
interpretations, discontinuities, logarithmic and exponential descriptions.
6
The model-building process for the S-D relationship incorporated scientific knowledge of
Greenbergs logarithmic model in the model selection (16). Linear regression analysis at 95%
confidence interval was employed for the model fitting and model validation process by using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS). The three underlying assumptions were that
random errors are independent from one another (Durbin-Watson, d
u
), have constant variance (Scatter
diagram), and are distributed normally (P-P plot).
4. RESULTS
4.1 Headway concept (Total lane width 1.7 m)
From the linear regression analysis, motorcycle speed (S) versus motorcycle density (D)
relationship may be described in a linear form as:
S = 84 13 ln(D ) Eq. (1)
Based on Greenbergs logarithmic model which may be expressed in linear form as:
S = S
c
ln(D
j
) S
c
ln(D) ... Eq. (2)
the following results were obtained:
Jam motorcycle density, D
j
= 640 mc/km/ln
Critical motorcycle speed, S
c
= 13 km/hr
Critical motorcycle density, D
c
= 235 mc/km/ln
Maximum motorcycle flow, F
max
= 3060 mc/hr/ln
Hence, the fundamental motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships may be expressed as follows:
4.1.1 Motorcycle speed versus motorcycle density (Fig. 2)
S = 13 ln(640/D) . Eq. (3)
4.1.2 Motorcycle flow versus motorcycle density (Fig. 3)
F = 13 D ln(640/D) .. Eq. (4)
4.1.3 Motorcycle speed versus motorcycle flow (Fig. 4)
F = 640 S e
( -S / 13 )
. Eq. (5)
( Note: D 11 mc/km/ln )
7
4.2 Space concept (Total lane width > 1.7 m)
Similarly, the linear regression analysis of motorcycle speed (S) versus motorcycle density
(D) relationship may be described in the following linear form:
S = -10759 13330 ln(D ) Eq. (6)
Based on Greenbergs model, the following results were computed:
Jam motorcycle density, D
j
= 0.45 mc/m
2
(or Space, M
j
= 1/D
j
= 2.2 m
2
/mc)
Critical motorcycle speed, S
c
= 13330 m/hr (13 km/hr)
Critical motorcycle density, D
c
= 0.166 mc/m
2
(or Space, M
c
= 1/D
c
= 6.0 m
2
/mc)
Maximum motorcycle flow, F
max
= 2207 mc/hr/m
The fundamental motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships is described as follows:
4.2.1 Motorcycle speed versus motorcycle density (Fig. 5)
S = 13330 ln (0.45/D) . Eq. (7)
4.2.2 Motorcycle flow versus motorcycle density (Fig. 6)
F = 13330D ln (0.45/D) . Eq. (8)
4.2.3 Motorcycle speed versus motorcycle flow (Fig. 7)
F = 0.45 Se
( -S / 13330 )
. Eq. (9)
( Note: D 0.003 mc/m
2
)
4.3 Capacity values for various motorcycle lane widths
Based on the capacity values for both headway and space concept, the estimated maximum
motorcycle flow for a range of motorcycle lane widths were computed and summarized in the form of
a chart.
Fig. 8
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this study found that the motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships for both the
headway concept (W 1.7 m, motorcycle flow expressed in mc/hr/ln) and space concept (W > 1.7 m,
motorcycle flow expressed in mc/hr/m) are analogous to vehicular traffic streams. Similar to the
vehicular traffic streams, the relationship between motorcycle speed and motorcycle density (Fig. 2
and Fig. 5) indicated that as motorcycle density increases, motorcycle speed decreases. This trend
continues until a jam density condition is reached where density becomes so high that all motorcycles
8
practically come to a stop. In the headway concept, a jam density condition of 640 mc/km/ln was
observed, while the space concept resulted with a jam density at 0.45 mc/m
2
(or space of 2.2 m
2
/mc).
The logarithmic description of motorcycle speed-density adopted from Greenbergs
hypothesis (16) took into account the flaw of this model when motorcycle density values approaches
zero. Thus, an observed maximum free-flow speed of 53 km/hr corresponding to motorcycle density
of 11 mc/km/ln was superimposed for the headway concept model (Fig. 2). Similarly, an observed
maximum free-flow speed of 67 km/hr relating to motorcycle density of 0.003 mc/m
2
(or space of 333
m
2
/mc) was superimposed for the space concept model (Fig. 5).
In the motorcycle flow-density relationships, both Fig. 3 and Fig. 6 showed that motorcycle
flow is zero when motorcycle density is zero. This happens when there are no motorcycles on the
motorcycle lane. As motorcycle density increases from zero, motorcycle flow dramatically increases
with small increments in density until it reaches a point of maximum flow (capacity) that corresponds
to a critical motorcycle density. After this point of capacity, motorcycle flow starts to gradually
decrease with further increase in motorcycle density within an unstable flow region. Motorcycle flow
becomes zero when jam density or breakdown condition is reached. Fig. 3 for the headway concept
(W 1.7 m) indicated that capacity is reached at a critical motorcycle density of 235 mc/km/lane
corresponding to a maximum motorcycle flow of 3060 mc/hr/ln. Meanwhile Fig. 6 representing the
space concept (W > 1.7 m) indicated that a critical motorcycle density of 0.166 mc/m
2
(or space of 6.0
m
2
/mc), capacity is reached at a corresponding maximum motorcycle flow of 2207 mc/hr/m.
The motorcycle speed-flow relationships (Fig. 4 and Fig. 7) exhibited that after the free-flow
speed region, motorcycle speed tend to drop quite drastically with a slight increase in motorcycle
flow. This trend in speed reduction continues until flow reaches a maximum value. After this critical
motorcycle speed, an unstable flow region happens where motorcycle speed continues to drop but less
dramatically with respect to the drop in motorcycle flow. Motorcycle critical speed for headway
concept (Fig. 4) and space concept (Fig. 7) was found to be 13 km/hr and 13330 m/hr (13 km/hr)
respectively.
The values of the maximum motorcycle flow for headway concept (3060 mc/hr/ln) and space
concept (2207 mc/hr/m) obtained from this study threw light on the capacity at level-of-service (LOS)
E for an uninterrupted motorcycle path at different lane widths. Fig. 8 showed that capacity at LOS E
is maintained at 3060 mc/hr throughout the range of motorcycle lane widths from 1.4 m to 1.7 m. This
is so because motorcyclists could only ride in a single file since there is not enough space for
overtaking. If space concept were to be applied for this particular condition, a higher capacity value
would be incorrectly used. For instance, a 1.7 m wide motorcycle lane would result with a capacity
value of 3752 mc/hr at LOS E resulting with the motorcycle lane to be under-designed. Similarly, if a
headway concept were employed on a 2.5 m wide motorcycle lane, the capacity value of 3060 mc/hr
instead of 5518 mc/hr would result with the motorcycle lane to be over-designed.
It is interesting to note that an ideal lane width may be determined from Fig. 8. Knowing
that capacity for the headway concept is 3060 mc/hr throughout the lane widths from 1.4 m to 1.7 m,
doubling the value of capacity would correspond to twice the ideal lane width. Therefore, if a
horizontal line at a value of 6120 mc/hr is drawn in parallel to the motorcycle lane width axis, the
point of interception with the line graph of the space concept could be easily read-off the chart to
represent twice the ideal lane width; i.e. 2.8 m. Hence, an ideal lane may be computed as half of
2.8 m, which is 1.4 m wide. Based on this value, the headway concept is expected throughout the lane
widths from 2.8 m to 3.1 m. While above 3.1 m, the space concept is anticipated. It is worth noting
that the chart in Fig. 8 is limited to a motorcycle lane of up to 3.5 m wide. This is to reasonably
comply with the standard lane width of a highway that ranged between 3.0 m and 3.5 m.
These findings may also be useful as a basis in considering wide curb motorcycle lane along
arterial roads. However, it is advisable that the lane width be kept below 3.0 m for wide curb
motorcycle lane. This is to prevent errant automobile drivers to utilize the wide curb motorcycle lane
as an illegal overtaking lane. Apart from that, other anticipated problems such as junction treatments,
9
effects of wind blast from heavy vehicles, location of bus-stops, and other safety, comfort and
convenience factors must be taken into account.
Finally, even though the fundamental motorcycle speed-flow-density relationships, critical
density, critical speed, capacity at LOS E and jam density were established in this study, further
studies is still needed to define the LOS criteria for an uninterrupted motorcycle path. It is thought
that density would be the most appropriate measure since it best describes the proximity to other
motorcycles, which varies with motorcycle flow throughout the full range of flow. Apart from the
critical motorcycle density that objectively defined the capacity LOS E, the motorcycle density
thresholds for LOS A through D need to be subjectively defined. The knowledge of LOS criteria for
various motorcycle lane widths would be useful for traffic engineers to design a motorcycle path
according to the available lane widths, desired design LOS and design life. In conclusion, the findings
from this study are seen as an initial effort to bridge the missing link in capacity studies that existed
among various land transportation facilities. Thus, contributing new knowledge to the field of
transportation engineering.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Data, grants and support for field data collections were provided by the National Science Council
IRPA Malaysia, Public Works Department, Ministry of Works Malaysia and Roadcare (Malaysia)
Sdn. Bhd.
REFERENCES
1. Melhuish C. M., Report on Technical Assistance for Road Safety in the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, Regional and Sustainable Development Department, Asian
Development Bank, December 2002, pp. 3-4. (2002)
2. Mean Streets, TIME Asia Magazine Issue, August 9, 2004
3. Radin Umar R.S., Murray G. Mackay, Brian L. Hills, Multivariate Analysis of Motorcycle
Accidents and the Effects of Exclusive Motorcycle Lane in Malaysia, Journal of Crash &
Injury Control Vol. 1 No. 1, USA, 1998
4. Radin Umar R.S., Murray G. Mackay, Brian L. Hills, Preliminary Analysis of Exclusive
Motorcycle Lane Along the Federal Highway F02, Shah Alam, Malaysia, Journal of IATSS
Research Vol. 19 No. 2, 1995
5. Transport Statistics Great Britain 2002, Department for Transport, United Kingdom, 2002.
6. Arahan Teknik Jalan, 8/86, A Guide on Geometric Design of Roads, Public Works
Department, Ministry of Works Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 1986, pp. 92-98.
7. Arahan Teknik (Jalan), 10/86, A Guide to the Design of Cycle Track, Public Works
Department, Ministry of Works Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 1986.
8. Hussain H., Radin Umar R.S., Ahmad Farhan M.S., Dadang M. M., Key components of
motorcycle-traffic system: A study along the motorcycle path in Malaysia, 2004 (unpublished)
10
9. Highway Capacity Manual, 4th edition, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 2000
10. Highway Capacity Manual, 2nd edition, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 1985
11. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Safety and Locational Criteria for Bicycle
Facilities, Users Manual, Vol. 2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 1976
12. Botma, H., Method to Determine Levels of Service for Bicycle Paths and Pedestrian-Bicycle
Paths, TRR 1502, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1995, pp. 38-44.
13. Pushkarev, B., and J. Zupan, Urban Space for Pedestrians, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., USA, 1975.
14. Wardrop J.G., Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Road Paper No.2 (Part 1), London, 1952, pp. 326-331
15. Gerlough, D., and Huber, M., Traffic Flow Theory: A Monograph, Special Report 165,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1975.
16. Greenberg, H., An Analysis of Traffic Flows, Operations Research, Vol. 7, ORSA,
Washington, DC, 1959.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 : Motorcyclists riding manner along a motorcycle path in Malaysia (W
t
= 3.0 m)
FIGURE 2 : Relationship between motorcycle speed and density (Headway concept)
FIGURE 3 : Relationship between motorcycle flow and density (Headway concept)
FIGURE 4 : Relationship between motorcycle speed and flow (Headway concept)
FIGURE 5 : Relationship between motorcycle speed and density (Space concept)
FIGURE 6 : Relationship between motorcycle flow and density (Space concept)
FIGURE 7 : Relationship between motorcycle speed and flow (Space concept)
FIGURE 8 : Maximum motorcycle flow for various motorcycle lane width
11
FIGURE 1 Motorcyclists riding manner along a motorcycle path in Malaysia (W
t
= 3.0 m)
12
FIGURE 2 Relationship between motorcycle speed and density (Headway concept)
(R
2
=0.98, N=90, p<0.05, d
u
=1.70)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
4
0
1
6
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
3
6
0
3
8
0
4
0
0
4
2
0
4
4
0
4
6
0
4
8
0
5
0
0
5
2
0
5
4
0
5
6
0
5
8
0
6
0
0
6
2
0
6
4
0
6
6
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
4
0
1
6
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
3
6
0
3
8
0
4
0
0
4
2
0
4
4
0
4
6
0
4
8
0
5
0
0
5
2
0
5
4
0
5
6
0
5
8
0
6
0
0
6
2
0
6
4
0
6
6
0
Motorcycle Density, D (mc/km/ln)
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

S
p
e
e
d
,

S

(
k
m
/
h
r
)
S = 13ln(640/D)
S
c
=13, D
c
=235, D
j
=640
S=53
13
FIGURE 3 Relationship between motorcycle flow and motorcycle density (Headway concept)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
4
0
1
6
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
3
6
0
3
8
0
4
0
0
4
2
0
4
4
0
4
6
0
4
8
0
5
0
0
5
2
0
5
4
0
5
6
0
5
8
0
6
0
0
6
2
0
6
4
0
6
6
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
4
0
1
6
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
3
6
0
3
8
0
4
0
0
4
2
0
4
4
0
4
6
0
4
8
0
5
0
0
5
2
0
5
4
0
5
6
0
5
8
0
6
0
0
6
2
0
6
4
0
6
6
0
Motorcycle Density, D (mc/km/ln)
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

F
l
o
w
,

F

(
m
c
/
h
r
/
l
n
)
F = 13Dln(640/D)
F
max
=3060, D
c
=235
F = 53D
14
FIGURE 4 Relationship between motorcycle speed and flow (Headway concept)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
5
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
7
0
0
2
8
0
0
2
9
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
5
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
7
0
0
2
8
0
0
2
9
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
3
0
0
Motorcycle Flow, F(mc/hr/ln)
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

S
p
e
e
d
,

S

(
k
m
/
h
r
)
S=53
F = 640Se
(-S/13)
S
c
=13, F
max
=3060
15
FIGURE 5 Relationship between motorcycle speed and density (Space concept)
(R
2
=0.98, N=193, p<0.05, d
u
=1.91)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
8
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
2
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
8
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
8
0
.
4
0
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
8
Motorcycle Density, D (mc/m
2
)
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

S
p
e
e
d
,

S

(
m
/
h
r
)
S = 13330Ln(0.45/D)
S
c
=13330, D
c
= 0.166
S = 67000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
0.
00
0.
02
0.
04
0.
06
0.
08
0.
10
0.
12
0.
14
0.
16
0.
18
0.
20
0.
22
0.
24
0.
26
0.
28
0.
30
0.
32
0.
34
0.
36
0.
38
0.
40
0.
42
0.
44
0.
46
0.
48
16
FIGURE 6 Relationship between motorcycle flow and motorcycle density (Space concept)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
8
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
2
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
8
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
8
0
.
4
0
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
6
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
8
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
8
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
2
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
8
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
8
0
.
4
0
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
6
Motorcycle Density, D (mc/m
2
)
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

F
l
o
w
,

F

(
m
c
/
h
r
/
m
)
F = 13330DLn(0.45/D)
F
max
=2207, D
c
=0.166
F = 67000D
17
FIGURE 7 Relationship between motorcycle speed and flow (Space concept)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
Motorcycle Flow, F (mc/hr/m)
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

S
p
e
e
d
,

S

(
m
/
h
r
)
F = 0.45Se
(-S/13330)
F
max
=2207, S
c
=13330
S = 67000
18
FIGURE 8 Maximum motorcycle flows for various motorcycle lane width
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Motorcycle Lane Width (m)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

F
l
o
w

(
m
c
/
h
r
/
l
n
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e

F
l
o
w

(
m
c
/
h
r
/
l
n
)
6120
2.8
Headway
Headway
Space
Space
3060